Date Presented 04/04/19
This study describes the content validity of the Israeli version of Lifestyle Redesign®. We performed surveys regarding the relevance and necessity of each module on 71 practitioners specialized in geriatrics, 47 community-dwelling elderly, and nine women who already took part in the current version of the program. The Scale Content Validity Indexes were between 0.64 and 0.92, partially confirming the content validity of the program.
Primary Author and Speaker: Yafit Gilboa
Contributing Authors: Yael Safra, Aviva Beit yosef, Talia Maeir, Tamar Wechsler
PURPOSE: Lifestyle redesign® (LR) is a preventive intervention program aimed to promote healthy aging. It includes 12 modules regarding different aspects of health promotion for community dwelling elderly (Clark et al., 2015). The LR has recently been translated into Hebrew and adapted to community dwelling elderly in Israel. The aim of the current study is to establish the content validity of the Israeli version by examining the relevance and necessity of the different modules.
DESIGN: This is a mixed methods study. Quantitative data includes surveys of three target populations: health service practitioners specializing in geriatrics (practitioners), community dwelling elderly (consumers) and elderly who participated in the Israeli version of the LR intervention (participants). The qualitative aspect aimed to understand the participants perception of the relevance of the topics discussed during the intervention.
METHODS: The surveys were distributed on social media and hard copies using a snowball sampling. The practitioners and the consumers were asked to grade the relevance and necessity of the modules and the overall score of the intervention on a likert scale from 1 to 5 (1= not relevant/ necessary, 5= very relevant/ necessary). In addition, the participants were asked to grade the degree of suitability between the aim of each module and the actual content of the sessions and the clarity of the session. Quantitative results were analyzed by descriptive statistics and by Content Validity Index (CVI). Item Content Validity Index (I-CVI) computed as the number of responders giving a rating of either 4 or 5 on the relevance sub-scale, divided by the total number of responders. Scale Content Validity Index- Average (S-CVI/Ave) computed as the average of the I-CVIs. Qualitative data will be analysis thematically In the near future.
RESULTS: The practitioners included 71 persons, (mean age 42.48 ± 12.65 years), mean years of seniority (14.86 ± 12.41), most of them were Occupational therapists (72%) who work in geriatric settings. The consumers included 47 community dwelling elderly (mean age 68.11 ± 5.13 years, 74% female) The participants included 9 women, (age range 61-84). The mean for the overall score of the intervention among the practitioners and the consumers was high (practitioners- relevance 4.77 SD= 0.42, practitioners- necessity 4.74 SD= 0.73, consumers- relevance 4.04 SD= 1.08, consumers- necessity 4.57 SD= 0.65) as well as the score for each module (relevance, necessity > 3). The relevance scores were systematically higher amongst the practitioners then the consumers. The mean for the overall score of the intervention among the participants was higher than 4. The mean scores for each module were higher than 3 regarding the necessity, relevance, degree of suitability and clarity except module 2 (mean relevance= 2.44, SD=1.51). S-CVI/Ave score for the practitioners was 0.92 (I-CVI rang score 0.85-1). S-CVI/Ave score for the consumers was 0.73 (I-CVI rang score 0.6-0.91). S-CVI/Ave score for the participants was 0.64 (I-CVI rang score 0.22-0.89).
CONCLUSIONS: The results partially affirm the content validity of the Israeli LR. Module 2 (community mobility) and 11 (hormones, aging and sexuality) were rated lower than others, and so require further adjustments. Module 3 (various types of activities), 5 (dining and nutrition), 7 (home and community safety) and 8 (relationships and occupation) were rated higher than other modules. Overall the higher grades among practitioners versus consumers raise a question regarding the gap between the practitioner's overview about the needs of the targeted population and the ecology of the sample.
References
Clark, F. A., Blanchard, J., Sleight, A., Cogan, A., Florindez, L., Gleason, S., ... & Proffitt, R. (2015). Lifestyle redesign: The intervention tested in the USC well elderly studies. AOTA Press, The American Occupational Therapy Association, Incorporated.
Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2006). The content validity index: are you sure you know what's being reported? Critique and recommendations. Research in Nursing & Health, 29(5), 489-497.
